Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments 

Volume No.:44 

Subpart M—Food Processing 
June 2010 

Subpart M—Food Processing 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Atmosphere Programs 

Climate Change Division 

Washington, D.C. 
iii

FOREWORD 

This document provides EPA’s responses to public comments on EPA’s Proposed Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 

Federal Register on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448). EPA received comments on this proposed 

rule via mail, e-mail, facsimile, and at two public hearings held in Washington, DC and 

Sacramento, California in April 2009. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the 

EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments letters and transcripts of the public 

hearings are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508. 

Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EPA prepared this document in multiple volumes, 

with each volume focusing on a different broad subject area of the rule. This volume of the 

document provides EPA’s responses to significant public comments received for 40 CFR Part 

98, Subpart M—Food Processing. 

Each volume provides the verbatim text of comments extracted from the original letter or public 

hearing transcript. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document 

control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt is 

provided. In some cases the same comment excerpt was submitted by two or more commenters 

either by submittal of a form letter prepared by an organization or by the commenter 

incorporating by reference the comments in another comment letter. Rather than repeat these 

comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once and 

provided a list of all the commenters who submitted the same form letter or otherwise 

incorporated the comments by reference in table(s) at the end of each volume (as appropriate). 

EPA’s responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment 

excerpt. However, in instances where several commenters raised similar or related issues, EPA 

has grouped these comments together and provided a single response after the first comment 

excerpt in the group and referenced this response in the other comment excerpts. In some cases, 

EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to 

the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA has 

referenced the preamble. 

While every effort was made to include all significant comments related to 40 CFR Part 98, 

Subpart M—Food Processing in this volume, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject 

areas. For comments that overlapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a 

single subject category based on an assessment of the principle subject of the comment. For this 

reason, EPA encourages the public to read the other volumes of this document with subject areas 

that may be relevant to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart M—Food Processing. 

Please note, EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M – Food Processing as a 

distinct subpart in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. For more information, please 

See section III. Other Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble. 
iv

The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are: 

 Carol Cook (202) 343-9263 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 Office of Atmospheric Programs 

 Climate Change Division 

 Mail Code 6207-J 

 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

 Washington, D.C. 20460 

 ghgreportingrule@epa.gov 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY......................................................................... 1 

2. REPORTING THRESHOLD ............................................................................................ 10 

3. GHGS TO REPORT.......................................................................................................... 19 

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND 

MONITORING METHODS ............................................................................................. 19 

5. MONITORING AND QA/QC REQUIREMENTS........................................................... 20 
1 

SUBPART M—FOOD PROCESSING 

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. Sitler 

Commenter Affiliation: University of Virginia (UVA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 8 

Comment: The definition of “food processing facilities” leaves some room for question as to 

whether large kitchen or dining hall facilities fall into this category. Would a dining hall fall into 

this category or would that be considered food preparation rather than food processing? 

Preamble page 16507 specifically mentions “facilities in the meat and poultry, and fruit, 

vegetable, and juice processing industries.” This question may arise for locations such as 

colleges, prisons, and other facilities that serve a large number of meals and may also have other 

emissions sources totaling more than the 25,000 MTe CO2 threshold. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Food processing facilities are specifically included in subpart II – Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment, and must report their industrial wastewater emissions if the facility meets the 25,000 

ton CO2e threshold when all applicable source categories are aggregated. The definition for food 

processing facility is included in subpart II, and has been significantly revised from that in the 

proposed rule. 

The proposed definition was very broad, would have included sources for which EPA did not 

have supporting analysis, and multiple commenters requested additional clarity. For emissions 

from wastewater treatment, the industries included in the threshold analysis match the revised 

definition. The NAICS codes were added to clarify the coverage. The definition, as revised, 

does not include kitchens, dining halls, cafeterias, restaurants, or other establishments that 

prepare food for final consumption. Note that these establishments may still be required to 

report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus 

Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0381.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 4 

Comment: The definition of the food processing facilities provided in the source category rule 

language is very broad. It could be construed to require small sources such as a cafeteria in an 

administrative building to be included in reporting once a facility is subject to the rule. Also, the 

source category itself relies exclusively on the calculation methodologies from source categories 

as defined in other subparts, suggesting the Food Processing category is unnecessary. The 
preamble for this source category describes a very large universe of sources: “Food processing 

facilities prepare raw ingredients for consumption by animals or humans.” However, Table M-1 

and the Technical Support Document for this source category suggest that EPA’s intent is to 

limit applicability and reporting to only the largest meat and poultry, fruit, vegetable, and juice 

processing facilities based on the expectation that approximately 100 facilities of over 5,700 

nationwide would exceed the 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more per year of § 98.2(a)(2) and be 

subject to the rule as a food processor. There is no threshold in Subpart M that would preclude 

facilities that conduct some incidental food processing (such as institutional kitchens, cafeterias 

or restaurants) present at other types of sources from having to inventory these incidental 

activities for possible GHG emissions once the rule is found applicable for their facility. Upon 

further review of Subpart M, EPA sets very specific requirements for the GHG that must be 

reported for the source category. At § 98.132, EPA limits reporting to GHG from on-site 

stationary combustion (following the requirements of Subpart C), landfills (following the 

requirements of Subpart HH), and on-site wastewater treatment (following the requirements of 

subpart II). If the only reporting requirements for food processing facilities subject to the GHG 

reporting rule are these three source categories already covered in detail by the rule, we do not 

see the need for a separate food processing category. For example, a large meat packing plant 

that operates some combination of stationary combustion units, an industrial landfill, and 

wastewater treatment would need to determine its applicability to the rule under § 98.2(a)(2) or 

(3) even if food processing was not a specifically identified source category. We recommend to 

EPA to clarify the scope of the Food Processing source category language that solidifies EPA’s 

intent to address significant sources of GHG at a facility. Specifically exclude residential units 

from the Food Processing category. Set a capacity threshold for commercial-size units that are 

excluded from the source category. Alternatively, eliminate the source category and Subpart M 

since all of the GHG emissions that must be reported under the category are covered by source 

categories already defined in other subparts. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. 

Commenter Name: Keith Epperson 

Commenter Affiliation: American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0399.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: EPA’s proposed rule specifically designates food processing facilities as a facility 

category to which GHG emission reporting requirements would apply. EPA defines a “food 

processing facility” as one which “prepares raw ingredients for consumption by animals or 

humans.” EPA further states that food processing facilities may have on-site wastewater 

treatment and/or onsite landfills for waste disposal. AFIA strongly believes that EPA’s definition 

of “food processing facility” is much too far-reaching, and incorrectly encompasses thousands of 

facilities that are engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations. Such 

facilities have neither on-site wastewater treatment nor onsite landfills. Further, the majority of 

2 
such facilities have an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of stationary fuel 

combustion units of less than 30 million British thermal units (mmBtu) per hour. As such, we 

believe that EPA’s arbitrary definition of a food processing facility is in direct conflict with one 

of the agency’s stated objectives for the proposed rule – keeping the compliance and reporting 

burden to a minimum and excluding small emitters. This rule would require excessive reporting, 

and we believe the definition should be changed. We strongly recommend that EPA refocus its 

proposed definition of a “food processing facility” to those facilities whose operations fall within 

EPA-specified North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories that have 

GHG emission levels of known significance. If EPA desires additional criteria within its rule to 

ensure that facilities of interest are included within its “food processing facility” definition, we 

believe that onsite wastewater treatment and/or onsite landfill operations by a facility involved in 

food processing would serve as appropriate qualifiers to include such facilities within the “food 

processing facility” definition. Further, we recommend that EPA exclude the NAICS categories 

associated with facilities engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing from its 

“food processing facility” definition. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

If neither onsite industrial landfills nor onsite industrial wastewater treatment exist at facilities 

engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations, then subparts TT 

(Industrial Landfills) and II (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) do not apply. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition, as revised, does not 

include grain handling, grain milling, or grain processing operations. Note that these operations 

may still be required to report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: Steven M. Maruszewski 

Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0409.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 16 

Comment: As part of its housing and foods operations, Penn State, by the very broad source 

category definition, could be a food processing facility. For reporting in this source category, it is 

required to report emissions from (Rule SS 98.132, p1074) "(a) Emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4

from on-site stationary combustion. You must follow the requirements of subpart C of this part. 

(b) Emissions of CH4 from on-site landfills. You must follow the calculation procedures, 

monitoring and QA/QC methods, missing data procedures, reporting requirements, and 

recordkeeping requirements of subpart HH of this part. (c) Emissions of CH4 from on-site 

wastewater treatment. You must follow the requirements of subpart II of this part." Penn State 

will already be reporting all stationary source combustion emissions. Penn State does not have an 

on-site landfill. Penn State does have an on-site domestic wastewater treatment facility that treats 

the University's wastewater as well as some flow from State College Borough. Subpart II, SS 

98.350, defines this subcategory as industrial wastewater and it specifically excludes centralized 

domestic wastewater treatment plants. Thus, even though Penn State could be a Food Processing 

3 
facility as defined by the rule, the emissions reported would be the same as reporting under 

stationary sources. Being included in this source category only complicates the reporting with the 

requirement of reporting emissions separately by source category. This situation could also occur 

at a large manufacturing facility where the facility is required to report due to exceeding the 

stationary combustion emissions threshold and where the facility also provides cafeteria services 

to its employees. Penn State recommends that the definition for the Food Processing source 

category add the requirement that the food processed will be consumed off-site. This is similar to 

the same requirement in the Hydrogen Production source category definition where "A hydrogen 

production source category produces hydrogen gas that is consumed at sites other than where it 

is produced." (SS 98.160, p1100) 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition as revised, does not 

cover cafeteria services at a university such as Penn State. Note that universities may still be 

required to report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 9 

Comment: The proposed rule includes "miscellaneous use of carbonates." CO2 is used within 

the meat industry for anesthetizing (CO2 Stunning), modified atmosphere packaging, product 

crusting, and dry ice. These uses are not a significant source of emissions and should be excluded 

to reduce the emissions assessment and reporting burden for meat and poultry facilities. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Subpart U – Miscellaneous Use of Carbonates of the rule signed in 2009, is specific in the 

carbonates covered and what is required to be reported for compliance. Please see section 

98.210 of the final rule to determine if the carbonates used in the meat industry are required to be 

reported. 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 8 

4 
Comment: Wastewater treatment is fundamental to the meat industry, but it is not likely to be a 

significant source of GHG emissions in the U.S. The vast majority of meat and poultry further 

processing facilities in the U.S. indirectly discharge wastewater to a municipal facility for 

wastewater treatment (POTW). Among the slaughter facilities in the U.S., only about 20% to 

30% process wastewater onsite for direct discharge to waterbodies, and the remainder indirectly 

discharge to a POTW. At indirect discharge sites that send all wastewater to a POTW, only 

pretreatment operations occur. At direct discharge slaughter facilities, often a combination of 

aerobic and anaerobic treatments may be found at the same facility, and in a growing number of 

cases, these anaerobic treatment operations have been covered to capture biogas and reduce odor. 

Municipal treatment is excluded from the proposed rule because of its minimal contribution. 

Pursuant to EPA's ''Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,'' the 

contribution from food industry wastewater is projected to be less than that of municipal sources. 

This combination of factors should allow for exclusion of wastewater treatment from meat 

industry facilities. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that industrial wastewater treatment should not be 

included in the rule because it would not be a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

While many meat processing facilities discharge wastewater to municipal treatment systems for 

further processing, they often pretreat their wastewater anaerobically onsite to reduce the organic 

content. This on-site pretreatment has the potential to emit significant amounts of greenhouse 

gases which are appropriate to include under the reporting rule. EPA acknowledges that some 

food processors may use aerobic treatment or have installed controls to capture emissions from 

anaerobic treatment. The threshold in subpart II is based on emissions, not generation. These 

facilities would not need to report if their operations do not exceed the reporting threshold. 

Domestic or municipal wastewater treatment plants are not included in the rule as the majority of 

those plants treat wastewater aerobically, and EPA’s threshold analysis did not show that any 

facilities would meet the reporting threshold (for more information, please see Wastewater 

Treatment Technical Support Document (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-035). 

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners 

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 4 

Comment: In light of the small contribution of bakeries to greenhouse gas emissions as a sector, 

and to avoid the burdensome impacts on bakeries and food prices that the rule (and even the 

substantial burden on individual baking facilities of determining whether and when the rule 

applies), EPA should expressly exempt the baking sector from regulation under the proposed rule 

and/or should determine that bakeries are not included within the food processing sector. EPA 

has ample discretion to exempt the baking industry from overly burdensome reporting 

requirements or to select an emissions threshold that does not inappropriately capture small and 

medium bakeries that operate at the margins of profitability. The principal authority underlying 

5 
EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule, the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides 

funding for EPA “to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate 

thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008). 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

The final rule requires bakeries that meet the applicable criteria in 40 CFR 98.2 to quantify CO2

emissions from stationary combustion and other applicable sources in subparts C-TT, but does 

not require bakeries to quantify or report CO2 emissions from the action of yeast in the baking 

process. With regard to stationary combustion units, the only other GHGs that must be reported 

are CH4 and N2O and the rule provides emission factors for these pollutants so that the 

calculation is straightforward. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition, of food processing 

facility, as revised in subpart II, does not cover bakeries. Note that these bakeries may still be 

required to report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 2 

Comment: The proposed rule would require reporting of GHG emissions by sources in a 

covered category that make relatively significant contributions to that source category's overall 

GHG emissions. For the meat industry, EPA would require reporting of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions for each stationary combustion unit, CH4 for 

each onsite landfill and for each onsite wastewater treatment system, and any other source 

category for which calculations methods are provided in the rule (74 Fed. Reg. 16462). EPA has 

elected not to include water vapor in the list of reportable GHGs. In that regard, EPA has 

properly identified the GHGs of importance to the meat industry. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. EPA has made the final decision not to 

include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. 

See section III. Other Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. 

Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 

25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Commenter Name: David Fairfield 

Commenter Affiliation: National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0463.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

6 
Comment: EPA’s proposed rule specifically designates food processing facilities as a facility 

category to which GHG emission reporting requirements apply. EPA defines a “food processing 

facility” as one which “prepares raw ingredients for consumption by animals or humans.” EPA 

further states that food processing facilities may have on-site wastewater treatment and/or on-site 

landfills for waste disposal. The NGFA strongly believes that EPA’s definition of “food 

processing facility” is far too expansive, and incorrectly encompasses thousands of facilities that 

are engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations. Such facilities have 

neither on-site wastewater treatment nor onsite landfills. Further, the majority of such facilities 

have an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of stationary fuel combustion units of less 

than 30 million British thermal units (mmBtu) per hour. As such, we believe that EPA’s arbitrary 

definition of a food processing facility is in direct conflict with one of the agency’s stated 

objectives for the proposed rule – keeping the compliance and reporting burden to a minimum 

and excluding small emitters. We strongly recommend that EPA refocus its proposed definition 

of a “food processing facility” to those facilities whose operations fall within EPA-specified 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories that have GHG emission 

levels of known significance. If EPA desires additional criteria within its rule to ensure that 

facilities of interest are included within its “food processing facility” definition, we believe that 

the operations of on-site wastewater treatment and/or on-site landfill by a facility involved in 

food processing possibly could serve as appropriate qualifiers for such facilities to be included 

within the “food processing facility” definition. Further, the NGFA strongly recommends that 

EPA exclude the NAICS categories associated with facilities engaged in grain handling, feed 

milling and grain processing from its “food processing facility” definition. These categories 

include NAICS codes 311111, 311119, 311211, 424510, and 493130. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

If neither onsite industrial landfills nor onsite industrial wastewater treatment exist at facilities 

engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations, then subparts TT 

(Industrial Landfills) and II (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) do not apply. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition, as revised, does not 

include grain handling, grain milling, or grain processing operations. Note that these operations 

may still be required to report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners 

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: Our members have a critical interest in the development of a carbon reduction 

program, particularly as it may impact their businesses. According to EPA’s own calculations, 

the food industry is a relatively insignificant portion of the targeted sources for regulations aimed 

at reducing climate change impact. In its “Technical Support Document for Food Processing 

Facilities”, EPA estimates that methane emissions from wastewater treatment and landfills in the 

7 
food processing source category totaled only 10.9 million metric tons CO2e per year. Taking the 

total nationwide net (sources and sinks) CO2e emissions in 2007 of 6,087.5 million MT CO2e, 

one can calculate based on the EPA Technical Support Document that emissions for the food 

processing industry constituted less than two hundreds of one percent (merely 0.179%) of net 

total emissions. Emissions from the baking sector specifically are in turn only a fraction of 

overall emissions from the food processing industry sector. We recognize that this figure does 

not quantify the emissions from on-site fuel combustion for food processing facilities; however, 

under recent “cap-and-trade” proposals in Congress, emissions from fossil fuels such as natural 

gas will be covered “upstream” by fuel producers and importers and will not be directly 

attributable to the baking sector, although bakeries will certainly pay the price of greenhouse gas 

reductions in the form of higher energy costs passed through to them as energy consumers. To 

further elaborate this point, take the example of a typical medium-size bakery with 100 

employees. The bakery produces buns and rolls. The bakery operates three ovens and two 

boilers. Refrigerant is used to cool the mixers, and the plant features a small wastewater lagoon. 

This calculation is based on 2008 when the bakery operated three shifts five days a week. The 

bakery has ovens 1-3 Oven 1, at 4 MMBTU and Oven 2, 5 MMBTU Oven 3, 6 MMBTU; and 

Boiler 1, 4MMBTU; and Boiler 2, 4MMBTU. This equipment does not run full-on and the 

bakery only used 31,973 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas. Multiplying 31,973 MCF 

times the conversion factor 10.25 and entering 327,723 therms yields carbon equivalents of 

1,974 tons. The carbon equivalent of the electricity generated is 3,307 tons. Refrigerant loss is 

500 lbs R-404A and equals carbon equivalents of 890 tons. The bakery sends 3,650,000 gallons 

of wastewater a year to a small lagoon for treatment. The lagoon is not aerated so the methane 

from the biological activity is released. The methane carbon equivalent is 200 tons. This example 

footprint is as follows: 1. Burning Natural Gas – 1 ton 2. Electricity – 3,307 tons 3. Refrigerant 

loss – 890 tons 4. Methane – 200 tons This bakery’s carbon footprint is 6,371 tons. If the 

operation had higher production the carbon footprint may have been closer to 10,000 [Footnote: 

Got Greenhouse Gas? A Bakery's Carbon Footprint, Milling & Baking News, May 5, 2009]. In 

light of this example, that is typical of the estimated contribution from the food industry towards 

greenhouse gas emissions, ABA emphasizes the need for pragmatic regulatory solutions that will 

avoid negatively impacting medium and smaller size businesses, such as bakeries. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

With regard to the reporting requirements for bakeries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4 of this document. 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 7 

Comment: Within the meat-processing source category, EPA identified emissions from 

stationary combustion units, onsite landfills, and onsite wastewater treatment systems as the key 

emission sources these facilities should consider when determining if reporting thresholds are 

exceeded (74 Fed. Reg. 16631). Stationary fuel combustion sources are common to the meat 

8 
industry, primarily boilers for heating water for scalding and other carcass preparation, USDArequired carcass, equipment and facility cleaning and decontamination, steam production, and 

process heaters for further processing of retail meat products and byproduct rendering. However, 

onsite landfills at meat processing facilities are rare. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

If an onsite industrial landfill does not meet the requirements specified in Subpart TT, or is not 

present at a meat processing facility, then Subpart TT does not apply. 

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners 

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 14 

Comment: EPA’s proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule is scheduled to start 

monitoring requirements on January 1, 2010 – merely 6 months away – with the first report due 

on March 31, 2011. ABA is concerned about the limited time frame for implementing this 

program at a smaller facility. The appropriations language mandating EPA’s proposal was signed 

in December 2007 and EPA was to propose the rule by September 2008. The proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009, 6 months after the deadline. If included as 

part of the mandatory reporting regime, small and large businesses will need additional time to 

implement a program at their facilities, to hire engineers and consultants, and to find the extra 

operating funds necessary to comply with another EPA program. For example, at some larger 

bakeries there may be the need to engineering assessments, vendor selection and budget 

approvals. In some cases these activities need at least an additional 15 month lead time. In 

particular, many sources in the baking sector are anticipated to be below the reporting threshold; 

however, even facilities that are not required to report will need to calculate their emissions (with 

the attendant costs and diversion of resources) in order to determine that they are not covered. 

Many small businesses will not be able to complete this assessment by 2010, and bakeries in 

particular may have emissions that are difficult to quantify such as CO2 emissions from the 

baking process. EPA should extend the first monitoring year to 2011. In the alternative, EPA 

should consider allowing those sources that would be reporting greenhouse gas emissions for the 

first time additional time to meet the requirements and submit their first report. Alternatively, 

reporting of 2010 emissions could be considered “transitional” with incomplete reporting 

accepted. For example, a facility may be allowed to report only emissions of CO2 in 2010, 

instead of the full suite of greenhouse gas emissions. Some larger facilities that are impacted by 

the proposed rule may be in a position to begin monitoring requirements at a faster pace than 

medium and small entities. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

9 
See today’s preamble section II B Changes to the Reporting Schedule.

With regard to the reporting requirements for bakeries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4. 

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners 

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 6 

Comment: EPA should proceed carefully when designing a greenhouse gas program, including 

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases proposal, so as to not overly burden the food 

processing industry, and thereby impose price burdens on the Nation’s food supply at a time 

when the economy is already negatively impacting businesses’ livelihood. For example, if a 

bakery with emissions near the 25,000 tons per year were a “covered facility” under a “cap-andtrade” proposal, that business would have to pay $500,000 per year in carbon fees for emissions 

allowances, even if allowances were priced at only $20/ton. This is a significant impact to a 

small or medium size business. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

With regard to the reporting requirements for bakeries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4. In developing the final rule, EPA gathered additional 

data on costs and re-examined the costs in each sector, in addition to considering ways in which 

to reduce the burden of the rule. More details on costs for individual source categories can be 

found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis that accompanies this rule, and response to comments 

received on the economic impacts of the rule found in Section VII of the preamble signed on 

September 22, 2009. 

Consideration of the costs and economic impacts of hypothetical future environmental policies is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

2. REPORTING THRESHOLD 

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey 

Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) Environmental 

Committee 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: The examples of affected facilities (Table 1) and source categories (Table 2) include 

multiple overlapping categories and subparts that may apply to a source. However, the 

10 
description fails to explain how the categories and subparts may apply to a source like a beet 

sugar manufacturer that uses processes that fit in multiple categories. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to 

comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition, as revised, does not 

include beet sugar manufacturers. Note that beet sugar manufacturers may still be required to 

report under other Subparts. 

Commenter Name: See Table 2 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 12 

Comment: The meat industry in general contributes only minimally to total U.S. GHG 

emissions. To get a better understanding of this, the Food Industry Environmental Council 

(FIEC) examined GHG emissions from the food industry. EPA estimated that the CH4 emissions 

from wastewater treatment and landfills of the entire food processing source category total 10.9 

million metric tons CO2e per year. EPA did not quantify the emissions from on-site fuel 

combustion. Taking the total nationwide new (sources and sinks) CO2e emissions in 2007 of 

6,087.5 million MT CO2e, FIEC calculated that the TSD-based emissions were 0.179% of net 

U.S. total GHG emissions. Using 2006 inventory figures, FIEC calculated food industry 

emissions of 0.181% of net U.S. total GHG emissions. Because the meat industry is a small 

subset of the total food processing industry, because 80% of the meat industry discharges its 

wastewater to POTWs, because aerobic treatment is a large part of the industry's wastewater 

treatment, and given that a growing number of existing meat industry anaerobic wastewater 

treatment facilities are covered, the meat industry is a small GHG emitter, which EPA sought to 

exclude from this rule. Accordingly, the rule should provide the following: 1. No reporting for 

facilities that emit less than 50,000 mtpy; 2. Annual reporting for facilities that emit greater than 

50,000 mtpy (for two to three years as described below); and 3. Reporting significant changes for 

facilities that emit 25,000 to 50,000 mtpy, if those changes would increase emissions to greater 

than 50,000 mtpy. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter that industrial wastewater treatment should not be included 

in the rule because it would not be a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Please see 

the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 8 of this document for further 

discussion. 

11 
While food processing facilities may not be large sources of GHG emissions, and are not 

included as a separate subcategory, their inclusion is important to the goal of the reporting rule if 

they are otherwise subject to reporting requirements. See the preamble signed in 2009 (74 FR 

(page 56317)) for response to comments on de minimus exclusions. 

Commenter Name: See Table 2 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 11 

Comment: EPA's published a meat and poultry processing guide to help facilities determine if 

they will fall above the 25,000 mtpy threshold. EPA used Office of Water demographics 

collected for the 2004 effluent limitations guideline promulgation to estimate the relative plant 

size that is likely to emit more than 25,000 mtpy from wastewater processing alone, but did not 

consider stationary combustion units. EPA estimated that "only a few facilities" that process 

annually more than 292 million pounds of meat or 232 million pounds of poultry would likely be 

subject to the rule (EPA, Table 2, Technical Support Document for Food Processing Facilities, p. 

5, 2009). However, EPA's definition of "large" meat and poultry production volumes are 

incorrect. In fact, large meat and poultry facilities today typically process: 1. Beef = 325 head/hr 

x 16 hrs/day x 1250 lbs/head live weight x 5 days x 52 wks = 1.69 billion pounds per year 

[Footnote: Published carcass yields for beef and pork are 62% and 76%. Tyson Foods, Inc. Fiscal 

2008 Fact Book, 32 pp.] 2. Pork = 1000 head/hr x 16 hrs/day x 280 lbs/head live weight x 5 days 

x 52 wks = 1.16 billion pounds per year 3. Chicken = 1.3 million birds/wk x 7.5 lbs/bird live 

weight x 52 wks = 507 million pounds per year. [Footnote: Published carcass yields for broiler 

chickens range from 73-76%. Kokoszynski D, Bernacki Z. 2008. Comparison of slaughter yield 

and carcass tissue composition in broiler chickens of various compositions. J. Central European 

Ag. 9 (1), 11-16. http://www.agr.hr/jcea/issues/jcea9-1/pdf/jcea9l2.pdf] Using EPA's projections 

a majority of AMI member company plants – large, medium, and perhaps some small plants too 

– process amounts of meat or poultry that would result in anaerobic wastewater treatment GHG 

emissions levels that exceed the proposed 25,000 mtpy threshold. When stationary combustion 

unit emissions are added, is it really possible that the majority of facilities in the meat industry 

will be required to report GHG emissions? Either EPA's numbers are incorrect for the pounds of 

meat and poultry processed that would exceed 25,000 mtpy, or the 25,000 mtpy threshold itself 

is too low, or both. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Food processing facilities are specifically included and defined in subpart II – Industrial 

Wastewater Treatment which is being finalized with this regulatory action. For more 

information on the definition of food processing facility, please see the response to comments 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. EPA revised the TSD for Industrial Wastewater, 

and in the course of doing so reevaluated the number of facilities that may be required to report 

their emissions from industrial wastewater under the rule. For more information, please see 

Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technical Support Document (June 2010) (see docket EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508 for a copy of this document). 

12 
Commenter Name: See Table 2 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 10 

Comment: The proposed rule identifies 25,000 mtpy CO2 equivalency (CO2e) as the total annual 

GHG emissions threshold for required reporting, aggregated for all the source categories and for 

all supply categories for which emission calculation methods are provided6 (74 Fed. Reg. 

16462). Although the proposal asserts that this threshold would exclude small emitters, thereby 

reducing the reporting burden and providing the most valid data for future policy and regulatory 

decisions, (74 Fed. Reg. 16456), it is uncertain that this benefit will ensue. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

See the preamble signed in 2009 (74 FR (page 56317)) for response to comments on de minimus 

exclusions. 

Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty 

Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 4 

Comment: Tyson respectively requests EPA to reconsider the full impact of the 25,000 tpy 

GHG reporting threshold on meat processors. EPA claims only a few facilities within the meat 

processors will be affected by this regulation at this threshold. Tyson disagrees entirely with 

EPA’s approach to estimating the potential number of affected facilities by the annual amount of 

processed meat or poultry. Within Tyson alone there will be 20+ facilities affected for the long 

term of which all of 20+ facilities are over the EPA’s volume estimates. While many of 

companies have similar processes to Tyson, we believe there will be much greater impact within 

the industrial sector then initially estimated by EPA to the extent that most of the meat 

processing facilities in the US will be reporting emissions. Many of the meat processing 

companies will have to rely on outside consultants to help coordinate and compile the data and 

assemble the reports. As with all regulatory requirements there will be a financial impact to the 

company and therefore at some point that financial impact will trickle down to the bottom of the 

“food chain” to the consumer. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

13 
With regard to the number of meat processors expected to be required to report emissions under 

the rule, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 11. 

Commenter Name: See Table 2 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: AMI's comments demonstrate that the meat industry as a whole is an extremely 

small component of U.S. GHG emissions, that EPA's concept of a "large" meat or poultry 

processing plant is incorrect, and that this incorrect concept has led EPA to significantly 

underestimate the number of meat and poultry processing facilities (the "meat industry") that will 

be affected by these reporting requirements. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

With regard to the number of meat processors expected to be required to report emissions under 

the rule, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 11. 

Commenter Name: Robert Garfield 

Commenter Affiliation: American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0402.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 2 

Comment: AFFI believes that for source categories contributing relatively insignificant amounts 

of GHG emissions (i.e., below 0.5% of nationwide CO2e emissions), EPA should use alternative, 

conservative reporting thresholds that are tied to the status of a source category facility as a Title 

V major source rather than the capacity of particular facilities to emit GHGs. AFFI respectfully 

recommends this approach for three reasons. First, AFFI estimates that excluding non-Title V 

facilities from GHG reporting will not adversely affect the quality or reliability of EPA’s GHG 

collection efforts. Even if the reporting requirements excluded every single food processing 

facility—an overly- conservative assumption given that at least some food processing facilities 

fall under Title V—EPA would miss detailed emissions data only from some 0.161% of 

nationwide GHG emissions [Footnote: Using AP-42 emission factors, a natural-gas-fired boiler 

would need to have a capacity of some 171 MMBtu/hr to emit 100 tons per year NOx, while at 

the same time emitting only 78,000 MT CO2e /yr. Using the Title V threshold approach, the 30 

MMBtu/hr stationary fuel combustion threshold would need to be altered for qualifying source 

categories]. And reporting under the rule of natural gas deliveries by local distribution companies 

would provide EPA with a separate source of data from which to calculate GHG emissions from 

the combustion of natural gas. Second, major sources under Title V are already accustomed to 

managing sophisticated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. As a result, 

those facilities already have internal QA/QC procedures in place, have designated representatives 

responsible for compliance, and have staff that are well-qualified to include GHG monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting in the normal operation of the facility. In short, Title V facilities 

14 
already have the foundations in place to support the additional burden of GHG reporting. Last, 

the burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting on small-to-medium-sized facilities 

unaccustomed to detailed federal environmental compliance outweighs the minor benefits 

achieved by collecting detailed GHG emissions data from such an insignificant source category. 

In recent testimony to Congress, Administrator Jackson has reiterated that EPA’s GHG policies 

are not designed to adversely impact smaller businesses. Limiting the scope of the proposed rule 

as we have suggested is a step towards avoiding those adverse impacts. As well, most of these 

food processing facilities use efficient natural gas as the primary fuel source to meet FDA and 

USDA processing requirements for safe and wholesome food products. Taken together, 

including non-Title V sources in a source category that contributes less than 0.5% to nationwide 

GHG emissions appears to be contrary to EPA’s stated goal of “[b]alanc[ing] the rule coverage 

to maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters,” and may be 

contrary to Congress’ directive to require reporting of GHG emissions “above appropriate 

thresholds.” [Footnote: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 

2128 (2008). AFFI also notes that EPA has not estimated the incremental GHG emissions to be 

reported at different threshold levels, making it very difficult to determine whether the 25,000 

MT CO2e /yr threshold for the food processing source category is reasonable. Compare Table M1 with Table N-1, 74 Fed. Reg. 16,507–508.] 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

See the preamble signed in 2009 for the response on selection of the threshold. Regarding the 

comment that only Title V sources should report emissions, see the response to comment from 

the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0526.1, excerpt 6 in Volume 2. 

Commenter Name: Robert R. Hirst 

Commenter Affiliation: International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1143.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: IBWA believes that for source categories contributing relatively insignificant 

amounts of GHG emissions, such as the bottled water industry (i.e., below 0.5% of nationwide 

CO2e emissions), EPA should use alternative, conservative reporting thresholds that are tied to 

the status of a source category facility as a Title V major source rather than the capacity of 

particular facilities to emit GHGs. IBWA estimates that excluding non-Title V facilities from 

GHG reporting will not negatively affect the quality or reliability of EPA’s GHG collection 

efforts. Even if the reporting requirements excluded every type of food processing facility, 

including those associated with the manufacturing and dispersal of bottled water—an overlyconservative assumption given that at least some food processing facilities fall under Title V—

EPA would miss detailed emissions data only from some 0.161% of nationwide GHG emissions. 

Reporting under the rule of natural gas deliveries by local distribution companies would provide 

EPA with a separate source of data from which to calculate GHG emissions from the combustion 

of natural gas. Title V facilities already have the foundations in place to support the added 

responsibility of GHG reporting. Major sources under Title V are adapted to managing 

sophisticated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. These facilities have 

15 
adopted internal QA/QC procedures, have designated representatives responsible for compliance, 

and are outfitted with well-qualified staff to include GHG monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting in the normal operation of the facility. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

See the preamble signed on September 22, 2009 for the response on selection of the threshold. 

Regarding the comment that only Title V sources should report emissions, see the response to 

comment from the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0526.1, excerpt 6 in Volume 2 

of this document. 

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners 

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 3 

Comment: EPA should consider further streamlining the applicability by providing a de minimis 

exemption for any food processing facility (with emissions only from combustion) which has 

less than 30 million Btu burner capacity. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

With regard to de minimus reporting, please see the preamble signed in 2009 and the response to 

comment from the rule signed 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0374.1, excerpt 7 in Volume 2. 

Commenter Name: Robert Garfield 

Commenter Affiliation: American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0402.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: AFFI respectfully recommends that for those GHG source categories contributing 

less than 0.5% to nationwide GHG emissions, EPA require reporting only from facilities in the 

source category that would otherwise qualify as a major source under Title V of the Clean Air 

Act. The bases for our recommendation are set forth in more detail below. The GHG Reporting 

Rule identifies food processing as a source category that emits GHGs from landfill operations, 

wastewater treatment systems, and stationary fuel combustion and for which EPA has set a 

facility-wide GHG reporting threshold of 25,000 MT CO2e /yr. EPA has estimated total GHG 

emissions from this source category (excluding stationary fuel combustion) of some 10.9 MMT 

CO2 which equals 0.152% of total 2007 nationwide CO2e emissions. Including a proportionate 

share of stationary fuel combustion GHG emissions [footnote: That is, 0.152% of total estimated 

16 
stationary fuel combustion emissions of 410 MMT CO2e, see 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,482, or 0.63 

MMT CO2e.] in the food processing source category yields total estimated emissions of 11.53 

MMT CO2e, or 0.161% of total 2007 CO2e emissions—an undeniably insignificant contribution 

to overall emissions. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

EPA is not excluding source categories from reporting based on the specific percent of 

nationwide GHG emissions contributed by the source category as a whole. See the preamble 

signed in 2009 and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 excerpt 8. 

Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth 

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc. 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 9 

Comment: In the Proposed Rule, EPA states that "POTWs are not included in this proposal 

because, as described in the Wastewater Treatment TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-035), 

emissions from POTWs do not exceed the threshold considered under this rule." (74 Fed. Reg. at 

16,560). However, EPA’s Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions depicts POTWs as a larger 

contributor of CO2e than industrial wastewater treatment. (EPA, DRAFT Inventory of US 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Ch. 8, Table 8-6 (April 15, 2009)). Food 

processing is an even smaller subset of the industrial category. As AMI observes in its 

comments, 2007 CO2e emissions in the food industry amounts to 0.179% of net US total GHG 

emissions. Based on EPA’s own reasoning for excluding POTWs from the Proposed Rule, there 

is absolutely no basis to include food processing. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III, Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

EPA has not required domestic or municipal treatment systems to report emissions because, as 

described in the Wastewater Treatment TSD (EPA– HQ–OAR–2008–0508–035), emissions 

from domestic or municipal treatment systems do not exceed the thresholds considered under 

this rule. Due to the fact that most centralized wastewater treatment plants use aerobic treatment, 

and those that use anaerobic systems are small, EPA does not expect any to meet the 25,000 

metric ton CO2e reporting threshold. As a result, EPA has not required POTWs to report 

emissions. 

Commenter Name: Robert R. Hirst 

Commenter Affiliation: International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1143.1 

17 
Comment Excerpt Number: 2 

Comment: The burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting on small-to-medium-sized 

facilities unaccustomed to detailed federal environmental compliance outweighs the minor 

benefits achieved by collecting detailed GHG emissions data from such an insignificant source 

category. In recent testimony to Congress, Administrator Jackson has reiterated that EPA’s GHG 

policies are not designed to adversely impact smaller businesses. Limiting the scope of the 

proposed rule as we have suggested is a step towards avoiding those adverse impacts. Taken 

together, including non-Title V sources in a source category that contributes less than 0.5% to 

nationwide GHG emissions appears to be contrary to EPA’s stated goal of “[b]alanc[ing] the rule 

coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters,” and 

may be contrary to Congress’ directive to require reporting of GHG emissions “above 

appropriate thresholds.”[Footnote: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121 

Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). AFFI also notes that EPA has not estimated the incremental GHG 

emissions to be reported at different threshold levels, making it very difficult to determine 

whether the 25,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for the food processing source category is reasonable. 

Compare Table M-1 with Table N-1, 74 Fed. Reg. 16,507–508.] 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in 

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III, Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Please see the response to comment from the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-

0609.1, excerpt 2 in Volume 10 for EPA’s approach to reducing burdens on small businesses. 

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey 

Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) Environmental 

Committee 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 20 

Comment: We encourage the US EPA to further consider impacts to small to medium 

companies and American farmers in promulgating this GHG inventory rule. Although all US 

beet sugar processing facilities anticipate being required to participate the GHG inventory, the 

additional resources required to comply with reporting rules will significantly impact our 

typically nearly a century old facilities that have to compete in a commodity industry. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Please see the response to comment from the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-

0609.1, excerpt 2 in Volume 10 of this document for EPA’s approach to reducing burdens on 

small businesses. 

18 
3. GHGS TO REPORT 

Commenter Name: Mike Redman 

Commenter Affiliation: The American Beverage Association (ABA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0582 

Comment Excerpt Number: 1 

Comment: Manufacturers of carbonated beverages use carbon dioxide as an ingredient in the 

beverage manufacturing process. In the US, all of the carbon dioxide used in beverage 

manufacturing originates as a byproduct of other industrial processes (such as fermentation, etc.) 

from other industries. No new or virgin carbon dioxide is manufactured for use in carbonated 

beverages. Since all of the carbon dioxide used in beverage manufacturing is a byproduct of 

other industrial processes, the carbon dioxide used as an ingredient in carbonated beverage 

manufacturing does not represent a new source of a greenhouse gas. Although ABA recognizes 

that carbon dioxide emissions from beverage manufacturing facilities represents a minute portion 

of overall greenhouse gas releases, reporting carbon dioxide emissions from carbonated beverage 

manufacturing would not reflect the “accurate and timely” information that EPA has outlined as 

its goal in the preamble to the proposal. ABA urges EPA to consider the unique circumstances 

described above and address this issue in any future steps during this rulemaking process. 

Carbon dioxide which is both a byproduct of other industrial processes and an ingredient in 

foods and beverages should not be subject to greenhouse gas reporting as such reporting would 

be both misleading and inaccurate. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

Under subpart PP (Suppliers of CO2), industrial facilities that capture a CO2 stream and supply it 

for commercial application must report quantities captured and supplied. The facility that 

purchases and uses the captured CO2 would have to report facility direct CO2 emissions only if 

the facility contains a source category covered by the rule and there are methodologies in the rule 

for reporting CO2 process emissions for the specific industrial process. 

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND 

MONITORING METHODS 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 13 

Comment: EPA does not require continuous emissions monitoring of meat industry combustion 

devices, but provides options for calculating GHG emissions. In its proposal, EPA agrees that 

indirect estimation is more cost-effective and reliable. 

19 
Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III, Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

The final subpart C for stationary fuel combustion retains the tiered approach that allows 

specified calculation methods rather than CEMS for many combustion units. 

5. MONITORING AND QA/QC REQUIREMENTS 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 18 

Comment: EPA apparently considered sunsetting the reporting requirement after three years but 

rejected the option because the agency concluded that such an approach would unnecessarily 

limit the debate about potential policy options to address climate change (74 Fed. Reg. 16478). 

There is no substantive reason to conclude, however, that the climate change debate would be 

affected in any manner if reporting was limited to two or three years. Meat processors should be 

required to report for two or three years only, and thereafter report when process changes occur 

or other considerations significantly change emissions estimations. Such a policy exists for 

continuous emissions reporting by animal feeding operations of hazardous air pollutants under 

EPA regulations for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). Reporting emissions for two to three years should provide EPA with sufficient 

data on which to make informed policy decisions regarding climate change – the purported goal 

of the rule. If two or three years proves to be insufficient, EPA could take action to extend the 

rule. EPA should, however, have a sunset plan for this information gathering tool because once 

regulatory programs are established, they are very difficult to end for political reasons unrelated 

to their continued relevance. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

For the response to the comment regarding inclusion of sunset provisions, see the response to 

comment for the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7 in Volume 5 

of this document. 

Commenter Name: See Table 1 

Commenter Affiliation: 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 17 

20 
Comment: EPA concluded that annual emissions reporting is sufficient for policy development 

and is consistent with other existing mandatory and voluntary GHG reporting programs at the 

State and Federal levels. The agency cautioned, however, that as future policies develop it may 

be necessary to reconsider the reporting frequency and require more or less frequent reporting 

(e.g., quarterly reporting under future programs or policy initiatives, particularly if regulatory in 

nature such as a cap-and-trade program). To that end, for the meat industry, annual reporting is 

more than adequate for a period that would depend on the emissions level. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

EPA has retained annual reporting in the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty 

Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 5 

Comment: We strongly urge EPA to rethink their position for the Meat Processing Industry and 

allow a much slower transition into reporting as well as limit the number of years from 2-3 years 

of required reporting. Thereafter, a facility should only have report if there are significant 

changes made to that location dramatically increasing the GHG emissions. 

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source 

Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still 

be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions 

from all applicable sources covered by the rule. 

For the response to the comment on reducing the frequency of reporting, see the response to 

comment for the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 3 in Volume 12 

of this document. 

EPA decided not to phase in reporting for different source categories as recommended by the 

commenter because comprehensive data are critical to the timely development of future GHG 

policy and regulatory programs. As explained in Section II.G of the preamble signed on 

September 22, 2009, Congress requested EPA to develop this reporting program on an expedited 

schedule, and Congressional inquiries along with public comments reinforce that data collection 

for calendar year 2010 is a priority. For more information on why EPA needs to collect data in 

2010, see Section I.G of the preamble signed on September 22, 2009. However, EPA agrees that 

some facilities may need additional time to install monitoring devices and the final rule includes 

provisions allowing best available data to be used during the first quarter of 2010. For more 

information on the use of best available data, see Section II.G of the preamble signed on 

September 22, 2009. 

21 
22 

Table 1 

COMMENTER AFFILIATE DCN 

Mark Dopp American Meat Institute (AMI) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Stewart T. Leeth Smithfield Foods, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553 

Table 2 

COMMENTER AFFILIATE DCN 

Mark Dopp American Meat Institute (AMI) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 

Stewart T. Leeth Smithfield Foods, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553